http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59316
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> x86/x86-64 now have their own fenv.c file that defines the FE_* macros
> itself and so is immune to that issue. I was hoping that generally the
> macros would be defined to correspond to the appropriate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59316
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Hopefully the other OSes use one of these two settings.
At least FreeBSD uses the Linux setting.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59134
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-e500|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59368
--- Comment #3 from Yury Gribov ---
Created attachment 31361
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31361&action=edit
Proposed patch
Dmitry, does this look fine?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59134
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
typedef struct {
char pad;
int arr[0];
} __attribute__((packed)) str;
str *
foo (int* src)
{
str *s = __builtin_malloc (sizeof (str) + sizeof (int));
s->arr[0] = 0x12345678;
return s;
}
as said e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
bar = myalloc (); [return slot optimization]
:
_22 = MEM[(struct Bar * const &)&bar + 8];
MEM[(struct Bar * &)&bar + 8] = 0B;
MEM[(struct Foo * &)&foo + 8] = _22;
_23 = MEM[(const struct BarDelet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase:
extern void abort (void);
static struct X { void *a; void *b; } a, b;
void __attribute__((noinline)) foo (void)
{
void *tem = a.b;
a.b = (void *)0;
b.b = tem;
b.a = a.a;
}
int main()
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59351
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 3 11:57:31 2013
New Revision: 205627
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/59351
c/
* c-decl.c (build_compound_literal): Allow compound
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56344
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 3 12:11:36 2013
New Revision: 205628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/56344
* calls.c (expand_call): Disallow passing hug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59376
Bug ID: 59376
Summary: -mmemcpy-strategy= and -mmemset-strategy= are
undocumented
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59373
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59373
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can also look in the source, where the table is formatted correctly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56344
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2013-12-3
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59351
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 3 12:52:39 2013
New Revision: 205629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/59351
c/
* c-decl.c (build_compound_literal): Allow compound
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59363
--- Comment #22 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Dec 3 12:56:32 2013
New Revision: 205630
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Adjust destination address after gen_strset
gcc/
PR target/593
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59373
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 31362
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31362&action=edit
patch
Patch I am testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59363
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59351
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 3 13:52:12 2013
New Revision: 205632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205632&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-12-03 Marek Polacek
PR c/5935
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59351
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59355
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59367
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59003
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 Regression]|[4.9 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
gcc-bugzilla-f5d8 at theblacksun dot eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> It turned out that proposed fix does not help trunk compilers
> since now another huge routine is inlined firstly (read_input)
> and for perdida we got the following message:
This has been seen bef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58943
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59231
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59368
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
Yes, the patch works. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59377
Bug ID: 59377
Summary: VRP produces bogus warning with -Warray-bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59377
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Google ref: b/7233326
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
--- Comment #7 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
I saw that on old compiler sources (dated by 20130911) with my patch 'perdida'
was inlined without any additional inline parameters (using -flto) but now it
does not inlined since another large function read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 3 16:01:13 2013
New Revision: 205639
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/59063
* lib/asan-dg.exp: Don't add anything to flags i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59231
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59268
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 31365
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31365&action=edit
runnnable performance test case
Here is a runnable test case. You may need to increase the loop counts
depending
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54533
Paul Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||psmith at gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from Pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47471
Paul Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||psmith at gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55586
Paul Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||psmith at gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from Pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59316
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > In any case, c11-atomic-exec-5.c does not test anything relating to enabled
> > traps, although the feholdexcept code sequence fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58943
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think it should be fixed for all C standard versions, not just C11 (that
is, the front end should produce something like (save (rhs), save (lhs) =
save (lhs) op save (rhs)) to get the righ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59316
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Properly it should cause traps if those are enabled (although enabling
> traps is outside the scope of ISO C, and my guess is that when TS 18661-5
> provides C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 alternate excepti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59376
davidxl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59376
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59367
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think #pragma are being considered a statement which is why you are getting a
parse error. I almost want to say they are statements based on what I have
read (though I don't have any explicit references to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59377
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59377
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think this is an invalid testcase. GCC does not know what this
> strlen/memcmp does. If we add extern "C" around strlen and memcmp, GCC does
> not warn.
Does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59367
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
All preprocessing directives are deleted at the end of phase 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59020
--- Comment #5 from wmi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wmi
Date: Tue Dec 3 18:35:24 2013
New Revision: 205644
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205644&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-03 Wei Mi
PR rtl-optimization/59020
* sched-deps.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
>
>Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
>-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57363
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58726
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31366
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31366&action=edit
gcc49-pr58726.patch
Untested patch that does that, fixes the testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59003
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59378
Bug ID: 59378
Summary: Internal compiler error when using __builtin_shuffle
in a template function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59378
--- Comment #1 from Bauke Conijn ---
Created attachment 31368
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31368&action=edit
Testcase 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59378
--- Comment #2 from Bauke Conijn ---
Created attachment 31369
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31369&action=edit
Testcase 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59378
Bauke Conijn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31367|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
Bug ID: 59379
Summary: gomp_init_num_threads is compiled into an infinite
loop with --with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=slm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59003
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Switching off misaligned_move_string_pro_epilogues for AMD "fixes"
the issue:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/x86-tune.def b/gcc/config/i386/x86-tune.def
index 4c13c3a0ec69..af58b3e1f77e 100644
--- a/gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59378
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53424
--- Comment #4 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 31371
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31371&action=edit
Patch to tree_invariant_p_1
I tried restricting tree_invariant_p_1 as in the attached patch, but while this
fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||octoploid at yandex dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Symptom is msgfmt never stops:
30751 pts/0t 43:26 msgfmt -o de.mo
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc/libstdc++-
30752 pts/0R 64:42 msgfmt -o fr.mo
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc/libstdc++-
(gdb) info shared
>F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> Maybe a dup of Bug59003?
Maybe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #5)
> This has been fixed by Oleg in the 4.9 with a new cflow pass. In 4.8 I think
> it's best to just disable it as unsafe, The following workaround is enough
> to to fix the probl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59378
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
I wonder whether the following could be the right thing to do.
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -12823,6 +12823,9 @@ tsubst_copy (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t
complain, tree in_decl)
in re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59003
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59003
>
> --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
> Switching off misaligned_move_string_pro_epilogues for AMD "fixes"
> the issue:
We need to figure out why
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #27 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #26)
> A: "The specific intrinsic procedure itself retains the elemental property
> (so a reference using its own name can be elemental), but the dummy
> procedure or p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59317
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@linux-mips.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Maciej W. Rozycki from comment #3)
> Caused by:
Well that corrects how i++ is done.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59378
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
No, that doesn't work for the second testcase...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 31372
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31372&action=edit
A testcase
The outputs from stage 2 and stage 3 cc1 are different:
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 pr59379]$ make
/export/build/gnu/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #8 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #7)
> Thanks I have posted the updated patch (which checks for
> gimple_register_type rather than non-BLKmode)
FWIW, it is possible to have a BLKmode struct pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
--- Comment #5 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Well that corrects how i++ is done.
Old MIPS assembly code produced was AFAICT correct. The loop termination
condition was expressed as:
bne$3,$6,$L
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Maciej W. Rozycki from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > Well that corrects how i++ is done.
>
> Old MIPS assembly code produced was AFAICT correct. The loop terminat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59378
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59380
Bug ID: 59380
Summary: libstdc++.a: could not read symbols: Bad value
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59380
littlestar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.8.2
--- Comment #1 from littlestar ---
wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59380
--- Comment #2 from littlestar ---
similar to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58638
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59381
Bug ID: 59381
Summary: Internal compiler error in get_expr_operands, in
tree-ssa-operands.c:1035
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59381
--- Comment #1 from Heimdell ---
Created attachment 31374
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31374&action=edit
The (compressed) file, produced by compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59381
--- Comment #2 from Heimdell ---
Created attachment 31375
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31375&action=edit
Project sources
94 matches
Mail list logo